Ormsby v. Stewart & Ors

In the case of Ormsby v. Stewart & Ors, the plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained during intraocular lens replacement surgery. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants failed to adequately warn her of the potential outcomes of the surgery, including the need for corrective surgery, and did not adequately test her ability to cope with the outcomes. The plaintiff also alleged that the surgery did not achieve the desired outcome, and she suffered pain and suffering as a result. The defendants argued that they had satisfied their duty to disclose material risks to the plaintiff and that the outcome of the surgery in the plaintiff's case was not a material risk. The court was required to determine whether the defendants had a duty to warn the plaintiff of the actual outcome of the surgery and to test her ability to accommodate that outcome, whether the defendants satisfied their duty to disclose material risks to the plaintiff, and whether the outcome of the surgery in the plaintiff's case was a material risk. The court also needed to decide whether the plaintiff would have continued with the surgery if she had been warned of the actual outcome, whether the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by not undergoing corrective surgery, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages and the assessment of damages.

The court found that the defendants had satisfied their duty to disclose material risks to the plaintiff. The warnings given were appropriate and met the standard of care expected of a prudent surgeon. The court held that the defendants had no duty to warn the plaintiff of the actual outcome of the surgery, as the outcome was not a material risk. The court also held that the plaintiff would not have continued with the surgery if she had been warned of the actual outcome. The court found that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by not undergoing corrective surgery, as advised by her own expert witness. Finally, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for pain and suffering, but not for economic loss, as the plaintiff did not make detailed submissions or present detailed evidence on economic loss. The court assessed the damages for pain and suffering at $20,000.

The action is dismissed. The defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiff $20,000 for pain and suffering. The plaintiff's claim for economic loss is dismissed with costs.